RE: SSML <break time="none"/>

Dear Marc,

Thank you for your review of the most recent SSML draft.

We have officially Accepted this request (with changes).
Here's our response:

>>> We will be reintroducing the distinction between break strength
>>> and time suggested by Alex Monaghan. The solution will also have the
>>> following characteristics: 
>>> 
>>> o It will be possible to have a break of strength="none" to ensure
>>>   that no break occurs.
>>> o When only the strength attribute is present, the break time will
>>>   be based on the processor's interpretation of the strength value.
>>> o When only the time attribute is present, other prosodic strength
>>>   indicators may change at the discretion of the processor.
>>> o When neither attribute is present, the element will increase the
>>>   break strength from its current value.

If you believe we have not adequately addressed your request,
please let us know as soon as possible.  If we do not hear
from you within 14 days, we will take this as tacit acceptance.

Again, thank you for your input.

-- Dan Burnett
Synthesis Team Leader, VBWG

-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Schroeder [mailto:schroed@dfki.de]
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 2:19 AM
To: Alex.Monaghan@aculab.com
Cc: www-voice@w3.org
Subject: Re: SSML <break time="none"/>



Hi,

I agree with the distinction Alex suggests. My requirement to "prohibit" 
the placement of a break would then correspond to a <break 
level="none"/>, while Alex wants a <break level="whatever" time="none"/>.

Marc.

Alex.Monaghan@Aculab.com wrote:
> dear hard-working SSML editors,
> marc's comment has reminded me to raise a couple of problems with the new
> definition of "break".
> 
> firstly, i think marc is quite right - <break time="none"> is now equivalent
> to the absence of a break tag, which is pointless.
> secondly, <break time="none"> SHOULD mean a prosodic break (end of
> intonational phrase, boundary tone, or whatever) but no pause. we seem to
> have lost the possibility of specifying the end of a multi-word prosodic
> chunk which is not marked by a pause, e.g. one which is marked solely by
> tonal and/or lengthening phenomena.
> thirdly, we have lost the ability to uncouple the strength of the break
> (between words, between phrases, between clauses, sentences, paragraphs,
> etc.) from the duration of the associated pause. pausing is only one aspect
> of prosodic breaks, yet it is now being treated as if it were the only one.
> also, in many applications there is a requirement to interleave synthesis
> with other audio: it can therefore be extremely useful to be able to specify
> a weak break (between words) with a long pause, or a strong break (between
> paragraphs) with a short pause. a couple of examples, in case this is not
> clear:
> a) in an educational text about rainforest animals, you might wish to insert
> animal noises without interrupting the flow of the narration, as in "The
> giant hairy anteater has a bloodcurdling scream (medium-strength break, long
> pause for audio sample) but the roar of the okapi (very weak break, long
> pause for audio sample) is even more terrifying."
> b) in a dialogue between a perky cartoon character and a bookish computer
> character, you might wish to have a paragraph read by the bookish character
> but let the perky character start speaking immediately after, as in
> "(bookish voice) ... and that is the reason why we know that the universe is
> banana-shaped. (full end-of-paragraph break, but only a very short pause)
> (perky voice) Yes, yes, all very interesting but can I eat the banana now?!"
> 
> in conclusion, please bring back the distinction between break strength and
> associated pause time, so that they can be specified independently, and make
> <break time="none". a default-strength break with no pause.
> 
> best wishes,
> 		alex.
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From:	Marc Schroeder [SMTP:schroed@dfki.de]
>>Sent:	Tuesday, January 21, 2003 9:26 AM
>>To:	www-voice@w3.org
>>Subject:	SSML <break time="none"/>
>>
>>
>>Hi,
>>
>>this is a minor comment regarding the SSML <break> element 
>>(http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-speech-synthesis-20021202/#S2.2.3), more 
>>specifically regarding the meaning of the attribute value "none" for the 
>>time attribute.
>>
>>The specification currently defines:
>>
>>The value "none" indicates that a normal break boundary should be used.
>>
>>
>>This currently seems to make "none" a synonym of "default". Much more 
>>useful would be the possibility to explicitly forbid the occurrence of a 
>>break where the default rules of a TTS system would (erroneously) place 
>>one. I therefore suggest replacing the above sentence with:
>>
>>The value "none" indicates that no break boundary should occur.
>>
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Marc Schröder, TTS Researcher at DFKI, Germany
>>Responsible for TTS development in the NECA project, 
>>http://www.ai.univie.ac.at/NECA
>>
>>-- 
>>Marc Schröder, Researcher
>>DFKI GmbH, Stuhlsatzenhausweg 3, D-66123 Saarbrücken, Germany
>>http://www.dfki.de/~schroed
>>"If you are happy, you are functioning well."
> 
> 


-- 
Marc Schröder, Researcher
DFKI GmbH, Stuhlsatzenhausweg 3, D-66123 Saarbrücken, Germany
http://www.dfki.de/~schroed
"If you are happy, you are functioning well."

Received on Friday, 8 August 2003 20:12:06 UTC